Bjj is probably the best martial art to defend against a rape, but there are probably better ways to help prevent a rape than martial arts like awareness of the people around you, watching your drinks when your out and more.

Osaka Peach, Frye and Goodridge were certainly powerful strikers. But their striking would look out of place against the strikers fighting today at the top levels. Abbott wasn't in their league back in the day, much less trying to be a top ten fighter today with his striking. And since you like superfights, I highly recommend UFC 9's Superfight (Ken Shamrock vs. Dan Severn) for an example of the great striking that was on display. Just don't bother if you don't want to watch two men literally circle each other with no attempt to strike or grapple for at least 15 minutes. Severn later stated that his strategy was to wait until the crowd started booing and got Shamrock riled up enough to do something hasty and make a mistake. It was illegal to throw punches with closed fists to the head in that event, a compromise which, along with a lack of headbutts, appeased the Detroit legal authorities enough to make them allow the UFC to go forward--at 4:30 in the afternoon on the day of the event. It was brutally lousy all around.

As for the vitally important issue of BJJ vs. rape, I've long been used to hearing how BJJ won't work against weapons, won't work against multiple attackers, won't work on pavement, won't work on hardwood kwoon/dojang/dojo floors, won't work on broken glass, won't work on lava, won't work on junkie syringes . . . . but I've never, ever heard the "BJJ won't work against your husband, boyfriend, or other acquaintances" argument.
Thank you all for showing me something new. I am off to commit seppuku with a whitetail antler.